Is Pope........ better than Waring ???

Which highlights the vital question......which player are we more likely to secure............Waring or Pope ???

And from this..........why bring in young loan players that we aint a cat in hells chance of signing ???

Its great that we are building a young team...........but why bring young loan players in that we KNOW that we haven't got enough money to sign ???

This does not make sense to me !!!

...............if you are wanting the young lads at the club to advance ...............are they likely to learn from loan players their own age .........or are they more likely to learn from loan players that are older and have more experience ???

But, as I've recently posted on here, there are only 11 places in the first team. We don't want to over egg it with experienced players to the detriment of the younger players being unable to get a starting place in the team.

In other words..........if you are bringing loan players in for a short period they need to be experienced............if you are bringing in young loan players then these must be available to sign long term

 

And he's allegedly more experienced in playing with kids so he'd fit in well with our youthful squad.

 

Jesus wept..

 

Based on yesterday I don't think Pope is any better than anybody we already have. He was pretty poor all game.

 

I think it's wrong to judge Pope on one particular game but as for Waring I thought he had cracking game yesterday

 

There were enough of our fans prepared to write off Sam Winnall after one game, so Tom Pope is in good company.

 

Wasnt that Pope's first game back for three months! Thought he was a bit a handful first half

 

Perfectly true. I even heard fans around us slagging Pope off. Is that a first, now writing players off even before we decide to sign em!

 

I don't know whether Pope would be a good signing for us or not, as I've hardly seen him play. But instant decisions on a player's abilities seem to be achieved quite easily by people cleverer and more knowledgeable of the game than I.

 

I'm not going to judge Pope on yesterday's performance. It'd be harsh to drop Waring out with how he's playing, at the minute. I'm not sure what the chances are, but I'd much prefer we spent some money bringing Waring in permanently, instead of a striker that'll be turning thirty when the new season starts.

 

Thought Pope and his mate did nowt much but moan to the ref trying to get Mvoto/Ramage booked in the first haif second haif it worked for em they got a one sided ref.

 

Our entire defensive line was set up to counter Pope's strengths. I think they did a good job on him and it's unfair to judge off just that game.

 

I'm not against signing young players on loan, even if we can't afford them permanently as long as we secure them on a long term loan, whether that be until the end of this season or next.
Signing players for a month is pointless IMO, especially in league 1.

 

Personally I think Pope would be a good addition... and could play along side Waring. He would much needed experience to our young side and is proven at this level...

He didn't score yesterday but gave Ramage and Mvoto a real physical battle up front... I've lost count how many times I hear fans talking about us losing the physical battles. Imagine if we had Pope and Waring vs Crawley on day one of the. Could have been a very different outcome.

 

It says how highly Danny rates Pope that he played 4 centre backs in the back 4 & picked 2 of the best headers in the division at centre back & Pope still won most of the aerial battles especially in the second half.

I think there's potential in Waring & obviously we've got a good striker in Winnall but we need more than them 2 & I think most would agree Lita & Hemmings aren't up to it. So yes, I'd have him

 

This argument seems to have been raging for the last 18 hours or so but for me it's a very silly argument.

A lot of people seem to have formed an opinion on Pope based on the game yesterday. I think this is very unfair, as he's just returned from a long injury and is still getting back to fitness. On current form Waring seems the better option. I get the feeling he may be available at the end of the season, I don't ever see him getting near the Stoke first team. I like Waring, he could be the target man we want. But the same can be said for Waring as I've just said about Pope, most people had written Waring off after his last 2 displays.

 

Just because Pope can out-jump Mvoto doesn't make him the player we need. I'd wait until the end of the season and get him on a free (possibly) but with his allegiance to his home town club, at 30 years of age, he might wish to stay at Burslem.

 

I think people have mis-understood what I'm saying here.

I'm not really judging Pope against the qualities of Waring

What I am saying is that Waring is likely to be sold for big bucks because he is just 20 years old.
While Pope is 29 years old and wont cost that much

Which highlights the vital question......which player are we more likely to secure............Waring or Pope ???

And from this..........why bring in young loan players that we aint a cat in hells chance of signing ???

Its great that we are building a young team...........but why bring young loan players in that we KNOW that we haven't got enough money to sign ???

This does not make sense to me !!!

...............if you are wanting the young lads at the club to advance ...............are they likely to learn from loan players their own age .........or are they more likely to learn from loan players that are older and have more experience ???

But, as I've recently posted on here, there are only 11 places in the first team. We don't want to over egg it with experienced players to the detriment of the younger players being unable to get a starting place in the team.

In other words..........if you are bringing loan players in for a short period they need to be experienced............if you are bringing in young loan players then these must be available to sign long term